Forests are one of the iconic symbols of British Columbia, and successive governments and companies operating here have largely focussed on the cheap, commodity lumber business that benefits industry. Former provincial forestry minister Bob Williams, who has been involved with the industry for five decades, proposes regional management of this valuable natural resource to benefit […]

For the first time, this winter we are making Our Schools/Our Selves available in its entirety online. This issue of Our Schools/Our Selves focuses on a number of key issues that education workers, parents, students, and public education advocates are confronting in schools and communities, and offers on-the-ground commentary and analysis of what needs to […]

It’s been over a week now since I challenged the authors of 5 business-friendly economic reports to a friendly wager over the future trajectory of employment in provinces that are raising their minimum wage to $15 per hour. The challenge was issued in my Globe and Mail column of October 3.

I was responding to the several business groups and business-funded think tanks that had issued several reports predicting job losses from the higher minimum wage, in the run-up to the coming vote in the Ontario legislature on the policy. I summarized some of the major flaws of the various studies: including their misreading and misapplication of recent economic research on the employment effects of minimum wages (which typically find very small, or even slightly positive, effects); their misleading arguments regarding the connection between minimum wages and poverty; and their spurious concerns about the supposedly undue pace of the increases in Ontario and Alberta (in fact, of course, business lobbyists stridently oppose higher minimum wages on any timetable).

My main concern, however, was not these methodological critiques, but rather that the headlines generated from these reports about “coming job losses” resulting from higher minimum wages were very misleading, and in fact misportrayed the reports’ actual findings. The reports generally describe an implicit counterfactual simulation relative to some base case forecast (which presumably incorporates normal ongoing employment growth). At worst, in their scenarios (even if we accept their pessimistic approach), employment would grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case. That doesn’t really mean that “jobs are destroyed by higher minimum wages.” But that is how the results were portrayed in media coverage. The scale of potential job losses in even the more negative of these studies will almost certainly be overwhelmed by normal job creation, and hence employment will continue to grow even after minimum wages are raised.

It’s important to note that this is not because of higher minimum wages (the economic research suggests that the expansionary effects of higher minimum wages through stronger consumer spending roughly balance out potential contractionary effects experienced primarily through slower business investment). I am not arguing that a higher minimum wage in and of itself creates new jobs; only that fears they will destroy jobs and reduce employment are not valid. The small effects of minimum wages (in either direction) will be overwhelmed by the other, more important determinants of employment. Meanwhile, the distributional effects of higher minimum wages (shifting income from capital to labour, and towards low-wage workers in particular) will be very positive.

To highlight this point, I challenged the authors of five different critical studies to a $500 wager (each) that total employment in the relevant province they analyzed would be higher (not lower) one year after the minimum wage is increased. To propose this wager, I have corresponded personally with the lead authors of the studies published by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, TD Bank, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Ontario government’s own independent Office of Financial Accountability. (That last group is in a different category from the others: it is not a business-friendly think tank but rather a government-funded body meant to provide arms-length analysis of government fiscal policy matters; its mandate apparently allows it to wade into broader economic issues like this one. I remain deeply suspicious of the FAO’s decision to wade into this particular debate, and I think there should be a broader critical discussion of its mandate and governance.) The C.D. Howe report was focused on Alberta – and hence my proposed wager is based on the change in Alberta’s employment. All the others focused on Ontario, and the bet was defined accordingly.

In my correspondence I indicated that if I won the bet, I would donate both my winnings and my original ante to the Workers’ Action Centre (the fine organization which has spearheaded the Fight for $15 in Ontario), or in the case of the Alberta study to the Fight for Fifteen network based in Calgary.

To date I have heard back from three of the five authors. Two of the authors (lead authors of the TD Bank and Ontario FAO reports) replied noting that their own research in fact indicates their expectation that total employment in Ontario will indeed grow after the minimum wage is increased (although more slowly, in their judgment, than it would have otherwise). They were understandably puzzled why I would ask them to bet against their own forecasts! The lead author of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce study sent me a pleasant but noncommittal reply, referring me to a posted response which restates their key arguments, expresses concern at “ideological” misrepresentations of their findings, and declines the proposed wager. The reply (like the original study) makes no mention as to whether the authors expect total employment in Ontario to rise or fall after the minimum wage is increased (that is, whether the job losses they expect from the minimum wage will outweigh the normal expected increase in employment). I repeated this explicit question to them in subsequent correspondence, with no reply. I should note that all three of these authors also indicated they did not think betting on an important economic issue was appropriate or ethical.

I have not yet received a reply from the authors of the Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe reports. I will update this blog post (in the Comments section below) if I have any subsequent correspondence regarding the proposed wager.

For now, this offbeat exercise has confirmed my argument in the original column that none of the minimum wage critics are actually arguing that employment is going to decline in any of the provinces lifting the minimum wage to $15. Highlighting this point – that employment growth has been relatively strong in all three provinces (Ontario, Alberta, and B.C.), and will almost certainly continue even as the minimum wage increases – is an important way of responding to the fear-mongering of the business critics.

Comments

Jim Stanford – Many thanks for taking this initiative and let’s hope your challenge will itself generate a more positive spin about minimum wage benefits in media coverage.

Letter in Barrie Examiner, published September 19, 2017 (with footnotes to editor attached)

Wage hike good for Ontario

A close examination of the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) report indicates that the minimum wage hike will be far from a looming disaster.

According to the FAO, the wage hike to $15 per hour will directly result in pay increases for 1.6 million Ontarians, an impact that positively affects 22% of the workforce.

As for the dis-employment effects equivalent to 50,000 jobs over an unstated time for a small cohort of young people, even if this should turn out to be the case, remedial programs could be implemented to address this particular issue.

In that way, Ontario would still receive the considerable benefits of the minimum-wage increase: happier and more productive employees, reduced turnover and associated training costs, and a general reduction in income and gender inequality that will result in a healthier and more stable society.
Footnotes:

1. Some comments on the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario’s minimum wage commentary

Progressive Economics Forum

Jordan Brennan, Economist with Unifor, Research Associate of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Visiting Research Fellow at Harvard Law School.

“The scholarly research in Canada finds that higher hourly wages are associated with greater employee satisfaction, reduced turnover and associated training costs, and improved labour productivity, all of which was mentioned (or implicitly recognized) by the FAO study….

***
The FAO states that 1.6 million people will be directly affected by a $15 minimum wage and that those currently working between $15 and $19 will benefit from the spillover effects. In other words, a very large proportion of Ontario’s labour market is set to receive a pay raise. The Ontario Government certainly has other policy options at its disposal when it comes to improving the economic station of the least well off (including the working income tax credit)….”

2. The headline you didn’t see: $15 per hour will have a big net benefit

Progressive Economics Forum

Michal Rozworski

“Today’s new minimum wage research, if applied to Ontario would predict job losses anywhere from half of what the FAO is putting out to ten times smaller to nil (some studies, including well-known papers, have even shown small but positive aggregate employment effects).

***

Even if we assume its job loss estimates come true, the FAO says real labour income will go up by 1.3% after taking into account any negative effects, with over 60% of that going to the bottom 50% of households.”

Comment from Larry KatzTime: October 14, 2017, 8:08 pm

Important, creative contribution, Jim, as always.

Comment from Tim LashTime: October 15, 2017, 5:14 pm

A nicely targeted tactical-factual challenge! It creates a crack that already lets in some light, and it may do more.

Comment from John RichmondTime: October 20, 2017, 5:27 pm

I would have been surprised if any of the organizations in question had taken Jim up on this. But I am surprised the offer did not garner some entertaining coverage in the corporate media. They must have been tempted but told not to give a lefty free publicity.